Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Suresh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:2224) on 14 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:2224]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 473/2025
Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Babulal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Bhutel, Post Devra, Police Station Jhab, District Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And
Health Service Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Joint Secretary (A-3/complaint), Department Of
Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director (Ph), Medical And Health Service
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Additional Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical And
Health Services Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
5. The Principal And Controller, Dr. S.n. Medical College And
Associate Group Of Hospital, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
14/01/2025
1. Grievance of the petitioner, a medical officer, arises out of an
order dated 19.12.2024 (Annex.17), vide which service of the
petitioner was placed under suspension and the subsequent order
dated 03.01.2025 (Annex.18), whereby he was relieved from his
posting.
2. Relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details are that the
petitioner obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to appear in
NEET PG 2021. After qualifying, he was allotted a PG course in
Radiodiagnosis at Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur. On
(Downloaded on 15/01/2025 at 09:43:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2224] (2 of 4) [CW-473/2025]
12.04.2022, the petitioner was relieved from the position of
Medical Officer to join the PG course, and a three-year study leave
was sanctioned for this purpose.
2.1. However, on 20.03.2024, an FIR No. 101/2024, alleging
fabrication of educational degree of one Kamla Kumari, was
registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B
of IPC at Police Station Civil Line, Ajmer wherein the petitioner
was not initially named as an accused, but was later implicated
based on the statement of a co-accused. The petitioner was
subsequently arrested on 22.03.2024 and is currently on bail.
Charge-sheet was filed on 14.06.2024 and petitioner is facing trial
as co-accused.
2.2. Following his release, the petitioner submitted an application
on 12.11.2024 to rejoin the PG course. Instated, on 29.12.2024,
Respondent No. 2, exercising powers under Rule 13(2) of the CCA
Rules, 1958, suspended the petitioner effective from 22.03.2024
on ground of having remained in custody and fixed his
headquarters at the office of the Director, Medical and Health
Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Hence, the instant petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and gone through the case record.
4. My attention has been drawn to the circular dated
22.03.2023 (Annex.-19), particularly clause (b) thereof, which is
relevant and translated into English reads as below:-
“Suspension and revocation of suspension in Heinous &
Grievous offences by the police :
1. Heinous offences and grievous offences such as
murder, rape, dowry death, human trafficking, foeticide,
trafficking of illegal drugs, involvement in using unfair
means in public examination act or offences of Moral
Turpitude matters, in all these cases, if any government(Downloaded on 15/01/2025 at 09:43:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2224] (3 of 4) [CW-473/2025]employee is arrested and kept in custody
(Judicial/police custody )for more than 48 hours, Then
search government employee should be immediately
suspended.
In cases of such government employees, if the
charge-sheet has been filed before the appropriate
court, then their matter for revocation of their
suspension should be kept before the review committee
for proper consideration.”
5. In light of the above, it does appear that the competent
authority, before passing the impugned order, first ought to have
placed the case of the petitioner before the review committee.
Given the sheer time lapse between the time when the petitioner
was arrested and the time of passing the impugned order, coupled
with the fact that, at this stage, petitioner is merely an under trial/
co-accused, since the trial has commenced after filing the charge-
sheet, his suspension may not be warranted.
6. Moreover, it so appears that principal accused, who took the
benefit of the fabricated mark-sheet is one Kamla Kumari. The role
attributed to the petitioner is merely that of a conspiracy in
helping her to prepare the fabricated mark-sheet. Thus, the
petitioner is not beneficiary of the said fabrication, if any, which, in
any case is sub judice before competent court. At this stage, it is
merely an allegation.
7. Be that as it may, the instant petition is disposed of with a
direction that case of the petitioner shall be placed before the
Review Committee within a period of 30 days upon the petitioner
approaching with the web-print of the instant order. The Review
Committee shall thereafter take a decision in accordance with the
circular, ibid, by passing appropriate order.
(Downloaded on 15/01/2025 at 09:43:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2224] (4 of 4) [CW-473/2025]
8. Till the needful is done, the effect and operation of the
impugned orders dated 19.12.2024 (Annex-17) & dated
03.01.2025 (Annex.18) shall remain stayed.
9. In the parting, it is made clear that since the impugned
orders have been stayed, petitioner shall be allowed to continue to
carry on with his IIIrd year of the Post Graduation course at Dr.
Sampurnanand Medical College (SNMC), Jodhpur.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
21-/Jitender/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No.
(Downloaded on 15/01/2025 at 09:43:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)